Interesting as I have always read and heard that she wanted her son to reign as King Albert Edward and he himself said as much at his accession council - that the expectation was that he would reign as King Albert Edward but that it was his decision to not use Albert as he believed that the name Albert should stand alone.

I've never heard that version; where have you read it, Iluvbertie?
Funny how many stories, some contradicting, are there about the name and its use.

Quote:

Not really - he could have chosen any name. He wasn't restricted to his given names.

Of course he could; I did mention a Monarch can select one of his given names - or a random one altogether. However, the practice so far has shown all Monarchs who didn't reign under their first given name choose from one of their other names, hence the comment.

Every biography I have ever read of either Victoria and Edward (I have only read about 30 in total as their reigns have been the focus of a lot of my studies at uni). In addition to that my great-uncle's diary and he talking to people about Edward's speech within hours of it being given, as he moved in those circles.

I have never heard the version that Victoria never wanted someone to use Albert - the opposite in fact as she insisted that every male line descendent had Albert in their name so she expected an Albert to reign at some time - particularly her eldest son and heir.

I haven't read nearly as many biographies of either. My sources were from Internet (such as wiki.answers) so are probably much less reliable than yours.
Henceforth, I'll adhere to that, more accepted, version.

I have read or been told that Queen Victoria did not want another QV to reign? Is that what you have heard?

Queen Victoria made a similar insistence in regards to naming of her female descendants -- that they all include the name Victoria. In fact I think the current queen is one of the first -- if not the first -- female descendant of QV not to have Victoria as one of her names.

Given the number of sons she produced, I would imagine Queen Victoria thought it unlikely that a Queen Regnant with the name Victoria would reign any time soon, if ever.

I completely agree; it would be weird calling him anything but Charles. However, don't forget Edward VII who was known as Albert (or Bertie) for the first 60 years of his life, before ascending to the Throne. Similarly, Edward VIII was David for 42 years and and George VI - Bertie for 41 years, before their own accessions. I suppose if people at the time could get used to the new names of the new Monarchs, so could we.

The difference is that those names were known more privately and not officially.

Edward VII when referred to in the papers was as HRH The Prince of Wales or The Prince Albert Edward, while Edward VIII was The Prince Edward or The Prince of Wales or simply Prince Edward and the same with George VI - the press called him Prince Albert. Their family names simply weren't the names the everyday people used.

So they had a name they used in private which was different to their public name but Charles seems to have the same name in both private and public (I am sure that we would have heard if the family called him by a different name by now - just as we know that Elizabeth was called Lilibet but that family name was never going to be her regnal name - so Edward VII and George VI were never going to be King Bertie.

I agree - I believe they were much more well known by their titles, Prince of Wales and by the time Prince Edward was in a public role - he was The Duke of York. And quite the family man: the Duke and Duchess of York and their 2 adorable princesses Elizabeth and Margaret Rose.

Not that dissimilarly now to the Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent. Most people (those not on this board ) arent that familiar with their given names.

I read somewhere that Charles really wanted a girl and name her Victoria...Maybe W & C will...that would be kinda neat to have a Queen Victoria II...That might be unlikely, considering Sweden will have a QV.

If William and Catherine want to name their first born Victoria, I don't think the fact the future Swedish queen carries the same name should, or would, dissuade them. The biggest reason being, Victoria is heir to the throne, whereas W&C's daughter would be the heir of the heir of the heir, should she be born in the current queen's reign. So it's likely by the time that daughter comes to rule, Victoria's daughter Estelle will be Queen.

__________________"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "

I don't think a Swedish princess or any other continental princess having a particular name would or should influence a member of the BRF when naming one of their children.
It would not be the first time in history that 2 European monarchs have the same name. Even today we have 2 monarchs named Albert II reigning on European thrones.

...Victoria...expected an Albert to reign at some time - particularly her eldest son and heir.

Your take on this topic is what I've read/heard about it too - that Victoria wanted Edward to reign as Albert Edward, but that he decided against it after her death.

Do you think he really did decide not to use Albert out of respect for his father's memory and achievements, or do you think it was more an act of rebellion, given Edward VII's somewhat difficult relationship with both his parents?

In my non-professional opinion, I'd definitely say the latter, rather than the former.

__________________"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "

Mary of Teck was alive, and active in 3 Coronation, 4 monarchs, including her own. Although she was ill, but I am sure consulted about different aspects Elizabeth's, and both George V & VI. QEM was on her second. I am sure they told her to keep her name. Charles will probably be alone, due to the DoE's advanced age. My bet is no Charles III, George VII is not out of the question.

I agree - I believe they were much more well known by their titles, Prince of Wales and by the time Prince Edward was in a public role - he was The Duke of York. And quite the family man: the Duke and Duchess of York and their 2 adorable princesses Elizabeth and Margaret Rose.

I think you are confusing the two brothers.

Prince Edward was in a public role from the age of 16 when his father became The King and he became The Duke of Cornwall and shortly thereafter The Prince of Wales.

His younger brother, Prince Albert, was given a lot longer before taking on a public role - into his mid-20s and after WWI. He was created The Duke of York in 1921 and only after the abdication of the former Prince Edward - who took his own name as King - that Prince Albert took the name George VI as his regnal name, although he was still called 'Bertie' at home.

Mary of Teck was alive, and active in 3 Coronation, 4 monarchs, including her own. Although she was ill, but I am sure consulted about different aspects Elizabeth's, and both George V & VI. QEM was on her second. I am sure they told her to keep her name. Charles will probably be alone, due to the DoE's advanced age. My bet is no Charles III, George VII is not out of the question.

She was actually active during the reigns of 4 monarchs:

1. Victoria as the wife of the 2nd in line to the throne and mother of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th by the time of Victoria's death.
2. Edward VII as the wife of the heir to the throne and mother of the first 6 in line to the throne by the time he died.
3. George V - as his consort
4. Edward VIII - as his mother
5. George VI - as his mother
6. Elizabeth II - as her grandmother - and still very influential particularly in working with Churchill to get the family name remaining as Windsor.

She attended three coronations but in some ways it could be argued that she also played a large part in Elizabeth's as protocol would decree that there should have been a full year of court mourning for her meaning the Coronation should have been delayed a year but it was her personal wish 'that the mourning for a Queen Consort should not disrupt the Coronation of a full Queen Regnant' and so there was no delay in Elizabeth's Coronation.

Your take on this topic is what I've read/heard about it too - that Victoria wanted Edward to reign as Albert Edward, but that he decided against it after her death.

Do you think he really did decide not to use Albert out of respect for his father's memory and achievements, or do you think it was more an act of rebellion, given Edward VII's somewhat difficult relationship with both his parents?

He hated the name Albert. Unfortunately, Prince Albert and Queen Victoria found endless fault with their son. To some degree they were right, but they never supported him. He felt Edward was HIS name, to reign as, Albert was his parents need.

We all assume that William's firstborn will be a daughter and that absolute primogeniture will be adopted. Neither of those things have to happen. The chance of both happening is actually less than 50%. But I nevertheless hope that their eldest daughter will be named Victoria. Lady Victoria Windsor sounds extremely regal on its own, not to mention Queen Victoria II I'd suggest Anne and Mary as alternatives - how about Queen Mary III?